UK backs Bush Iraq plan, aims to reduce own troops
Source: Reuters
(Adds Beckett, Browne comments) By Sophie Walker and Paul Majendie LONDON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Britain said on Thursday it would not send more troops to Iraq and still planned to reduce its presence in the south of the country, but supported Washington's new plan to build up troops in Baghdad. Responding to President George W. Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to tackle escalating violence, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said: "It is not our intention to send more troops at the present time." Defence Minister Des Browne told a parliamentary committee British forces in Basra would continue to transfer security duties to Iraqi forces, enabling them to withdraw. "It is my expectation that we will be able to see that process through and that over the course of the coming months and this year that we are now expecting to see a reduction of troops by a matter of thousands," Browne said. Giving testimony later to the same committee Beckett said Bush's plan was: "A change of direction for the United States. It doesn't necessarily imply a change of direction for us." Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's closest ally on Iraq, told parliament on Wednesday that British operations aimed at preparing the handover of security in Basra to Iraqi authorities could be complete in a few weeks. Blair's popularity has slumped over his decision to back Bush in Iraq. He has said he will step down this year after a decade in power. However, Beckett defended the new U.S. plan from accusations by British lawmakers that Washington was acting against the best interests of Iraq. She said it had the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. British opposition politicians criticised the troop build-up and said it ignored the recommendations of a key bipartisan study group led by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. Conservative foreign affairs spokesman William Hague warned that sending more U.S. troops to Baghdad could fuel insurgency. "We would like to have seen a package modelled more closely on the Baker recommendations, giving greater importance to accelerating the training and equipping of the Iraqi army ... (and) an emphasis on the urgent need to find a way of re-starting the Middle East peace process," he said. Blair's spokesman defended the plan, saying Bush had announced steps to help Iraqi security capabilities and to spur reconstruction, both of which Baker's report had called for. OVERSTRETCHED Britain has some 7,100 troops in southern Iraq, mostly stationed in and around Basra. Rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for control of the city, Iraq's second biggest, and sometimes attack British troops. British generals fear their troops are severely overstretched as British forces are also involved in fierce fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Daily Telegraph, citing a timetable for withdrawal it said it had seen, reported that Britain would cut troop levels in Iraq by almost 3,000 by the end of May. Defence Minister Des Browne told the parliamentary foreign affairs and defence committee he had not been asked by the United States if British troops could be deployed elsewhere. Browne said contingency plans had been made should the new U.S. policy to tackle violence in Baghdad spark further insurgencies in British-held areas in the south. "We are well aware of that possibility...because the President has said they in Baghdad are now going to set about dealing with certain militia which come out of the Shia," Browne told the committee. "It's what we had hoped would happen some time and it's all part of our contingency planning," he said. (Additional reporting by Adrian Croft)
| AlertNet news is provided by |  |
